Dying Light: First Impressions

If I had to describe Dying Light in a few words, I’d have to describe it as Dead Island: Adult edition. From the limited time that I have managed to put into Dying Light I have found it to be, in terms of survival horror, everything Dead Island should have been.

In Dead Island i never really felt any sort of real threat from the zombies. I could run, or walk, at my own pace without fear of being injured, really. Whereas in Dying Light, in most areas outside, i find that i need to constantly check my surroundings. What aids Dying Light in the regard is the way in which the city is constructed. The city is mostly close quarters and i would describe it as favela-esque. This gives you less space to manoeuvre, as well as several hidden directions for zombies to approach from. Dead Island, however, was very very open, and when you add in the option of vehicles, the threat of the zombies becomes almost nonexistent.

The story of Dying Light really is no better, or worse, than Dead Island, but it seems that there are only a limited number of angles you can approach zombie apocalypse from. However, Dying Light does seem to actively emphasis the ‘survival horror’ aspect a bit more than Dead Island. Dying Light is not ‘true’ survival horror in that you are never at risk of losing all your items as you would be in something like Fallout, however the zombies that appear at night are very powerful, and thus makes venturing out a night something of a risky business.

So far, I am enjoying the game very much. There are a lot of areas that it falls down in, mostly based around the story, but for the sake of gameplay and enjoyment it’s as good as, if not better, than the similarly handling games out at the moment such as Far Cry, which I can only see as a positive.

Conor M.

The stagnation of annual games and why it should encourage innovation

So, here is a hypothetical. Your name is James. You own one of the two current generation consoles. What two games are you likely to own? If you’re from the UK chances are it’s Call of Duty and Fifa, If you’re from USA chances are it’s Call of Duty and Madden, and if you’re from, erm, Canada? I guess? It’s probably NHL. Regardless, the point is that you can typically guess the games that the majority of people own on console because they are the games released on yearly basis.

There are two things to take away from this. The first is that these are the games the make the most money and hence are more likely to be owned. The second thing is that these games are the most accessible in that they are sports games, and a cookie cutter FPS. They are very easy to pick up and enjoy immediately, thanks in no small part to the emphasis of multiplayer.

Because these games are accessible and hence quite formulaic in nature, it makes them difficult to reinvent on a yearly basis. Both games are approaching their graphical limit, the sports games specifically are close to adopting every aspect of their respective sports, and ultimately they are becoming predictable each in year. Most people will have recognised this and as many people will look at it with a negative outlook – these games and their approach to releases are stagnating creativity and enjoyment of games in general.

I however have a slightly more optimistic outlook. With every form of media and art we are faced with walls. These walls represent the limit of a certain approach, and rather than give up and accept this is as far as a medium can be taken, these walls are overcome.  In art in may represent a new movement being adopted, a new approach to the subject or form, and that is what i believe will happen with these mainstream games.  So rather than look at the abundance of annual games as the ‘dawn of the casual gamer’ or any other such overdramatic reaction, look at it instead as the precipice of innovation, where all games are adapting and making new. Who knows, it could lead to almost unthinkable prospect of BETTER GAMES!!

Conor M. 

Batman vs Superman...oh, and everyone else, too

Today, Zach Snyder the director of the upcoming Batman vs Superman film (and every other DC film as far as anyone is aware) tweeted a picture of Jason Momoa as Aquaman. As everyone pretty much expected, he has donned the tradition bright orange jumpsuit with green underpants on the top, or rather that’s what i was hoping to see. Instead, I was greeted with a rather more appropriate looking Aquaman who is bearded and brooding. I shall include a link to Zach Synder’s tweet which has the picture attached below so you can Conan the Aquarian for yourself.

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/568650209581858817?s=09

Taking into consideration the time frame of the filming of the DC cinematic universe films, the posting of this picture would suggest that King Triton will be appearing in Batman vs Superman. This seems problematic given the number of other DC characters rumoured to also make an appearance in this film. The confirmed list (as far as im aware) of who will appear in this film is as follows: Batman, Superman, Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Alfred Pennyworth, and Cyborg. All of those characters apart from Superman need to be introduced in a 2 hour period. It seems to be an impossible task. They will either play major roles and therefore have a poor introductions due to time restrictions or the majority will be cameos, which would make me question why they’d been forced in the film in the first place.

The picture of Poseidon was pretty much what I expected. Jason Momoa looks like the Aquaman I have been familiar with in DC comic for several years now. Essentially, this picture changes nothing of my feeling towards how he will play the character, just the way in which I think the Batman vs Superman film will play out. I truly hope it isn’t a case of having too many big fishes in a small pond.

Conor M.

Is Nintendo turning into Apple?

This may seems like a strange question at first glance. Apple doesn’t sell games; Nintendo doesn’t make computers, so how can they be seen as similar companies? The answer is simply in their use of marketing. Apple has been at the forefront of marketing for nearly 20 years now. The products that they create and the way in which they are announced has turned the likes of the IPod and Mac computers into more than just useful appliances, they are now collector’s items. The way Apple has done this, from a business standpoint, is astounding. With every new apple release there is a wave of anticipation that grips millions of people who then run out and buy the new product immediately. This allows apple to earn more money by releasing more frequently, regardless of whether the new product has significant improvements over the older model or not. From a consumers standpoint this is a very scummy way to do business but it is very profitable. For a company like Nintendo, who have struggled to keep pace in the video game systems market over the past decade, the adoption of this approach could see them beginning to make big profits once again, and it is my belief that Nintendo has indeed taken on this approach.

Nintendo recently announced the release of yet another iteration of the Nintendo 3DS, this one called, quite cleverly I might add, the NEW Nintendo 3DS. It’s the best naming decision i’ve seen since the Xbox One (the one that came after the 360). Anyway, it’s become increasingly obvious that Nintendo is releasing these handhelds more frequently and with fewer improvements (the last real improvement being the addition of 3D tech) which is in line with Apples approach to the Iphone:

·         1st gen: June 29, 2007

·         3G: July 11, 2008

·         3GS: June 19, 2009

·         4: June 24, 2010

·         4S: October 14, 2011

·         5: September 21, 2012

·         5C, 5S: September 20, 2013

·         6 / 6 Plus: September 19, 2014

·          

·         DS: 2004

·         DS Lite: 2006

·         DSi: 2008

·         DSi XL: 2009

·         3DS: 2011

·         3DS XL: 2012

·         2DS: 2013

·         NEW DS & XL: 2014

Another thing to consider with this comparison is how Nintendo is already talking about its next home console, despite the Wii U only being a few years old. This suggests to me that Nintendo may also be preparing to ramp up its home console releases. Furthermore, with regards to the Wii U, we can also look at the introduction of amiibos as the further commodification of Nintendos brand. The amiibos offer little in relation to games, and you really would only need one of them, but they are presented in a way that makes them collector’s items.

Over the decades that Nintendo has been around they have built up quite a lot of good faith with its loyal customers, and i wouldn’t call this emerging apple-esque approach as an exploitation of that, but i would look at it as Nintendo finally coming into the 21^st century and realising that they can’t rely on Mario forever to bring them a profit. I imagine that Nintendo will continue to show good faith towards its loyal fans for years to come regardless of how they start operating, so I’m fine with them trying to turn some more profit and catch up to Sony and Microsoft. Besides, everybody loves the underdog.

Conor M.

How Long Should A Video Game Be?

What is the appropriate length for a video game these days? How many hours of gameplay do we expect to make the £50 we paid worthwhile? Well, I bloody well hope that it is more than five – I’m looking at you The Order: 1886. Yes, the brand new PS4 exclusive is reported to be able to be completed in little over five hours, meaning you could play a multi-million dollar blockbuster game, from start to finish, on a slow Saturday afternoon.

So, with a laughably short single player campaign, and no multiplayer component to speak of, is The Order: 1886 worth its RRP? You could make the argument that it is a case of quality over quantity, and I agree that you shouldn’t overstuff your game unnecessarily just for the sake of it (Assassin’s Creed) but we are talking about FIVE HOURS OF GAMEPLAY!

Even, if you experienced some of the best video game storytelling and played in the awe of the, quite frankly, breathtaking graphics – do you honestly believe that makes The Order: 1886 worth the full asking price? You only need to look as far as video games like Skyrim and Grand Theft Auto, to find games that are fully worth the money we throw at them. I paid £40 for Skyrim in 2011 and, through multiple play-throughs, have probably sunk well over 300 hours in the world of Tamriel. THAT is value for money!

There is too much insistence and pressure on the graphical prowess and looks of video games these days that the studios back themselves into corners where they are shelling out way too much on lighting effects and resolution, and not enough on beefing up the game with actual gameplay. Even as video game prices steadily increase, we are seeing more and more games pop up with a pitiful play-through time. We aren’t endless wells of money to be taken advantage of, we want to get bang for our buck and really feel that our money has been well spent.

The Order: 1886 looks to have an interesting world but if I’m only going to get to spend 5 hours in there, I think I will keep my money to myself.

Alex A.

Film Adaptations That Surpass Their Novels

To say that a film adaptation is better than the novel of which the story came from is, put simply, high praise, and it would be the standard to assume that book will always be better than its adaptation. But with that in mind, there are a handful of films which I personally feel surpass their written word precursors. I will obviously only highlight films that are relatively known to be adaptations and not just throw out films that people didn’t even know where adaptations, like The Godfather.

First off, I’m going to address the obvious two which are The Shining and Shawshank Redemption. Both were originally pieces of writing from Stephen King but were, in my opinion, brought to new heights in their cinematic forms. The Shining was originally more of a ghost story and made no qualms about making that clear. Kubrick in his adaptation brought out a more eerie feel to the story, and ultimately it felt more natural. Then there is Shawshank Redemption which was initially just a short story which only had echoes of the storytelling that was achieved in the film.

Another film that I believe built upon the original novel is Fight Club. For those of you that haven’t read the novel, it follows quite closely to the events of the film, but the reason I feel the film surpasses it is due to the way in which cinema lends itself to this physiological approach. As with The Shining, the ability to visually represent psychosis is a lot more endearing and accessible than it is on paper.

Finally, the last film that immediately came to mind is The Silence of the Lambs. This choice is because of many things – the direction, the story, the acting, but the thing that makes the film better than the novel is the fact that it brought Hannibal Lector to life in a big way. Anthony Hopkins’ performance really made Lector into something that could never shine through in the novels. Furthermore, if you also consider the fact that Hopkins improvised a lot of the more memorable lines, we can see that The Silence of the Lambs succeeded in doing what all adaptations should aim to do which is make the story its own.

SO WHO CARES IF THE FILM IS BETTER OR NOT!?

Conor M.

Digital Game Distribution: The Failing Frontier?

Ah yes, we truly live in a digital age. The music industry has managed to find its future in digital sales and itunes and spotify have been an integral part of that. The Film and TV industry has found a new lease of life in the form of Netflix and digital distribution. This is shown in how much money The Interview made from an initially solely digital release. Then we come to the gaming industry. The gaming industry along with all other media forms also has its places of digital distribution and has shown the same success as the music and film industries with the likes of Steam. More sales than you can shake a stick at and AAA games going for low low prices. That, however, is only half the story. With the gaming industry digital distribution has two sides – the PC side and the console side, and with the console side digital distribution cannot get off the starting blocks.

PC gaming has picked up in recent years with pre-built machines prices falling, and new individual parts becoming cheaper to buy. However, the vast majority of gamers remain on console, and for this reason it is baffling to see how digital distribution is being handled on console compared to PC with steam. The prices of new releases on console are astronomical. What would be a £40 game as a physical release can be anywhere from £55-60 as a digital download. Why?

It defies logic that a game, minus all the boxing and wrapping and shipping that is required with a physical copy can be £20 more expensive as a digital copy on console. The only reason i can come up with to explain this phenomenon is the ‘issue’ of pre owned games. The major game publishers feel they are losing money on games that are bought second hand and so must be trying to compensate for those sale by bumping up the digital prices for the games, which you are obviously not able to sell on.

But even with this explanation it doesn’t explain why PC doesn’t suffer the same burden of high priced digital games, especially on steam where it is quite easy to have a shared account used by as many people as you like with only one purchase recorded. Furthermore, music, TV and Film should also have this pre owned problem attributed to games, surely? There may be a lack of reasoning behind this bizarre phenomenon, but it does seem that having the appropriate digital platform such as Steam, Netflixs or itunes is key to providing better deals. Something that Xbox Store and Playstation store for whatever reason cannot provide. Only time will tell as to whether digital distribution of games on console will reach the heights and success of other distribution platforms.

Conor M.